Answering Tovia Singer: Was There a Conspiracy?

One of Singer's most effective techniques is his use of conspiracy theory reasoning. Specifically, the central claim of his Let's Get Biblical series is that the New Testament authors deliberately and maliciously changed the Tanakh so that they could paint Jesus into it. Singer also claims that the New Testament writers altered and fabricated events in the life of Jesus in order to strengthen the case for his messiahship, and that the church conspired to cover it all up. Seeing how conspiracy theories seem to be all the rage these days, it is no surprise to me why Tovia Singer is the most successful of the anti-missionaries.

Conspiracy theorists make heavy use of three techniques:

Technique #1. Arguing from coincidence. Conspiracy theorists love to exploit the phenomenon called pareidolia. Pareidolia is what happens when our minds impose patterns on randomness. Ink blot tests are an example of this, so is our tendency to see faces in rocks, trees, and clouds. Did a politician cancel a flight at the last minute, right before a disaster such as 9/11? There are a lot of politicians and they tend to travel a lot. Flight cancellations are not that uncommon, so it could be a coincidence. But not if you're a conspiracy theorist! No. That cancellation is proof positive that the politician is deeply involved in an elaborate conspiracy of evil masterminds!

Technique #2. Use of explanatory gaps as proof of their theory. Conspiracy theorists recognize that almost any explanation will have "errant data" i.e. facts or alleged facts that do not fit the official explanation. Errant data are the currency of conspiracy theorists, the proof that their pet theory is correct. The problem with this technique is that it often fails to properly weigh the criteria for justifying historical explanations.

The fact that a conspiracy theory perfectly fits all the errant data, and fills all the holes left by the official explanation is not in itself proof, or even strong evidence that the theory is correct. Explanations are judged by a wide range of criteria, primarily the ability to explain future discoveries. Other criteria include the ability to imply other statements describing present, observable data, as well as how ad hoc the explanation is (it must include fewer new suppositions which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs). Conspiracy theories tend to have strong explanatory scope, but also tend to be very ad hoc, or contrived.

Technique #3. Exploiting the audience's ignorance. I love speakers who ask questions. It helps to engage the audience. It makes the audience feel they are part of a two-way dialogue. It helps the audience take interest in the subject, and feel that they are the ones arriving at the speaker's conclusion. All of this is good. What is not so good is when a speaker abuses this technique to derive his or her own conclusions from the often ill-informed assumptions of the audience members.

Here is a series of errors that conspiracy theorists often make, all of them ripped from Dr. Jeremy Goodenough of the University of East Anglia.

Error #1. Moving from the accepted fact that X once lied to the belief that nothing X says is trustworthy. This is a favorite of Holocaust deniers. If there is just one demonstrable mistake in for instance a witness statement, the whole statement is rejected as a forgery. The deniers argue that since there are several historical interpretations of the Holocaust, therefore it never happened. In other words: If one historian suggests that only 4 million Jews fell victim to the Nazi persecution, and another historian suggests 7 million, it means the Holocaust must be a false construction.

Error #2. An inability to make rational or proportional means-end judgments. Conspiracy theorists argue that some group of conspirators has been acting to further some aim or to prevent some action taking place, but often fail to ask whether such a group of conspirators could further their aim in some easier or less expensive or less risky fashion.

Error #3. Treating evidence against the theory as evidence for it. Conspiracy theorists do not just argue that the evidence could point toward a different conclusion. Rather, they claim that the evidence supporting the official verdict is suspect, fraudulent, faked or coerced. And because this fraudulent evidence exists, that further proves that the conspiracy theory is right!

Error #4. The classic logical fallacy of post hoc ergo proper hoc (after this, therefore because of this). The conspiracy theorist claims that because event B occurred after, or even as a result of event A, therefore, event A was caused to bring about event B. For example: The First World War happened after the death of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and there is clearly a sense in which it happened because of his death: there is a causal chain leading from the death of the Archduke to the first World War. Though these effects of the assassination may now appear obvious, that is no indication that such a progression was obvious to the people involved in these events at that time. There is no evidence that the people who assassinated the Archduke had any clue that it would bring about a world war. Hindsight is overwhelmingly clearer than foresight.

We observe these techniques and errors all the time in Singer's tape series. For example, he commits error #1 when he argues that the New Testament accounts contradict each other in certain details, and therefore cannot be trusted to represent history. Quite the contrary. Livy and Polybius give two irreconcilable accounts of Hannibal's campaign as he crossed the Alps and invaded Rome. Yet no historian doubts that Hannibal did mount such a campaign.

Singer dismisses the Septuagint as a church invention. Singer claims as his evidence that that in the book of Acts (Acts 7:14, to be exact), Stephen described the entrance of the patriarchs into Egypt, but Stephen got the number wrong, claiming that seventy-five souls went down from Canaan to Egypt rather than 70, which is stated by the Masroetic text in Genesis 46:27, Exodus 1:5, and Deuteronomy 10:22.

Singer then makes the claim that the church altered the Septuagint so that the text in those three locations would fit Stephen's speech! The Septuagint, or at least the Pentateuch, was translated from Hebrew into Greek under Ptolemy Philadelphus around 250 years before the birth of Jesus. Singer claims that the church changed the numbers to cover Stephen's error. How does he deal with the fact that the Septuagint still reads seventy souls in Deuteronomy? Obviously the church blundered when the altered the text and missed it. How is it we have no manuscript evidence of the alleged tampering, such as ancient fragments that read "seventy" in all three places? The church was powerful and thorough in covering its tracks.

This argument utilizes technique #2, where Singer concocts his elaborate tale of fraud and conspiracy. He then goes to the text to imply that the textual evidence perfectly fits his theory's predictions. In reality, he looked at the differences in the texts, and contrived a story to fit. In his argument, Singer commits errors #2 and 3. It would be a lot easier for the church to cover Stephen's alleged error by altering his speech in the book of Acts, over which the church had far greater control than it had over the Greek Pentateuch. He also paints the church as an entity crafty, organized, and powerful enough to obliterate all manuscript evidence of its alterations, and yet careless enough to forget to alter Deuteronomy.

By the way, the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran agree with the Septuagint, so Stephen might have been quoting a variant of the text. Regardless, Singer's explanation is one of the Rube Goldberg variety. It is woefully and unnecessarily fanciful.

One of the best ways to prepare yourself for dealing with people like Tovia Singer, is to learn the methods and fallacies behind conspiracy theorists by reading the articles in the links below:

A Quick Introduction:
http://www.fontcraft.com/idiotwars/?p=8

A List of Conspiracy Theorist Fallacies:
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/conspiracytheories.html

Critical Thinking About Conspiracies (long, but worth it):
http://www.uea.ac.uk/~j097/CONSP01.htm

Answering Tovia Singer: Did God Create Evil?

In page 395 of his study guide, Let's Get Biblical, Tovia Singer answers a question about the Rabbinic doctrine of Satan. The questioner asks how a God who is good and holy can possibly be the author of evil, not just in the sense of allowing for evil to exist, but in the sense that God actively creates evil.

Singer responds that God placed both good and evil into the world. He cites two verses the first is Deuteronomy 30:15 which states:

"See, I [God] have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil."

The second is Isaiah 45:7 which states:

"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things."

Singer then goes on to attack Christian doctrine.

The two verses, Isaiah 45:7 and Deuteronomy 30:15, however, pose a serious theological problem for Christians who maintain that God did not create Satan, the angel of evil. According to Christian doctrine, as you suggest in your question, Satan was the highest-ranking angel who, through is own act of spiritual defiance and outright disobedience, became the chief adversary and slanderer of God and the embodiment of evil in this world. In Christian theology God never created evil; He is only the author of righteousness and perfection, as you maintained in your question. Therefore, God could never create something as sinister as the devil himself. Rather, Satan's unyielding wickedness is the result of his own spiritual rebellion.

Singer then compares the Christian view of good and evil to the dualism of Zoroastrianism, where the God Ahura Mazda has two equal manifestations, Spenta (good) and Angra (evil). Singer then states that angel means "messenger," and that no angel in the Tanakh ever opposes God's will, Satan included.

Singer then mentions the book of Job, where Satan appears before God to test the faithfulness of Job. God allows Satan to do so as long as the latter does not kill Job. According to Singer "Satan obediently follows his Creator's instructions" a statement which implies that God actually ordered Satan to torment Job, rather than giving Satan permission. Then Singer states:

Still, by the end of this unparalleled biblical narrative, Job's virtue prevails over Satan's unyielding torment. While in Christian terms Job's personal spiritual triumph is a theological impossibility, in Jewish terms it stands out as the embodiment of God's salvation program for mankind.

Singer then goes on to attack the NIV translation as a skewed understanding that conceals Isaiah's original message in order to preserve a Christian doctrine that contradicts what the Jewish scriptures so clearly teach.

I have to give Rabbi Singer points for rhetoric. When read by an average individual, his argument implies that the NIV translators deliberately mistranslated Isaiah 45, that Deuteronomy 30:15 states that God actively creates evil (and therefore we have two passages to support the claim instead of merely one verse), that the King James translates Isaiah 45:7 as moral evil, and that God actively ordered Satan to torment Job. When pressed by an apologist on these claims, Singer can rightly say that he never explicitly stated any of them. Pretty clever, huh?

First off, a little background about the book of Job. Christian theology does not state that God and Satan are in any way equals or counterparts. All angels, including Satan, are inferior created beings who are as helpless to resist God's omnipotence as we are. This is why Satan has to ask permission in order to torment God's servant Job.

The narrative then continues where Satan destroys Job's entire estate, kills his family, and if that was not enough, inflicts plagues and illnesses upon the poor man. Job's friends try to comfort him by offering Job a theodicy, an explanation as to why a good God is allowing Job to suffer.

After Job continues to complain, God finally appears, rebukes Job and his friends, and then tells Job that God does not owe anyone an explanation to why they suffer. We do not have God's vast perspective and extraordinary knowledge. We were not there at the creation of the world. We are weak, short-lived creatures who may not even be able to comprehend God's reasons for his actions.

The focus of Job is the problem of evil. The fact that we have no explanation for why a good God allows evil to exist and may never have such an explanation does not in any way indicate that there is no explanation.

God does restore Job's fortunes at the end of the book, but there is no indication that this is a reward for Job's faithfulness. In fact, it probably isn't, considering what Job says at the beginning of the chapter:

“I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
‘Hear, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.’
I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.”
(Job 42:2-6)

In Deuteronomy 30:15, the text seems to indicate that Israel is given two options: be faithful, loyal and good, and you will have life and prosperity. Be apostate, disloyal and evil, and you will have death and ruin. Where is the indication that God actively created evil? I can't find any, but maybe Tovia is drawing his ideas from the Rabbinic tradition. What does said tradition say about this verse?

R'Yochanan said of this verse: From the day that God made this declaration, goodness and evil did not emanate from His mouth; rather, evil comes of its own accord to one who does evil, and good comes to one who does good.

What about Isaiah 45:7 where God states that he creates evil? The word "evil" has more than one meaning, and those alternate (non-moral) meanings were in greater use during the time that the King James Bible was written. I was curious which definition of evil Tovia meant in this context. Here are five definitions of evil I found in the dictionary.

1. that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
2. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
3. the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
4. harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.
5. anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.

Is this talking about evil in a moral sense, or in one of the non-moral senses? Let's look at the Hebrew to see if it helps us:

יֹוצֵר אֹור וּבֹורֵא חֹשֶׁךְ
עֹשֶׂה שָׁלֹום וּבֹורֵא רָע
אֲנִי יְהוָה עֹשֶׂה כָל־אֵלֶּה

Forming light and creating darkness
establishing peace and creating ra,
I, the LORD create all these

The word in question is: רָע (ra, Strong's H7451) which can mean bad, evil, distress, misery, injury, or calamity. Basically, it's the same as our English word "bad" and carries a lot of the same meanings. Which meaning? Let's look at the context. The verse features two parallel lines, each line comparing two opposite ideas. God creates light, and its opposite, darkness. God establishes peace, and its opposite, chaos.

The next question is: is this just my interpretation, or is there Rabbinic support of this? I found one comment from Redak in the Judaica Press Tanach, who stated that in this context, רָע means "the opposite of peace, war with Babylon." Redak seems to indicate that this isn't a statement that God creates moral evil, but a statement that God creates peace and breaks peace, or that he both calms and agitates.

Oh, I almost forgot. Singer complains that some Christians believe Isaiah 14:12 is about Satan. I will admit that the oracle delivered by Isaiah is addressed to Nebuchadnezzar, but there is one part of this oracle that seems different:

How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!
You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far reaches of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."
But you are brought down to Sheol,
to the far reaches of the pit.
(Isaiah 14:12-15)

I'm not sure if you can apply this to Nebuchadnezzar. What pagan king, after all, tried to supplant God's rule over heaven, only to fall from it?

Answering Tovia Singer: An Introduction

Today, we begin our answering the anti-missionaries series. I intend to focus on specific anti-missionaries, give their backgrounds, and show you their arguments and rhetorical tricks, so that you can better debate them.

Perhaps the most famous anti-missionary is Tovia Singer. He is a charming and charismatic speaker, sort of the Rabbinic version of Ahmed Deedat. Neither is much of a scholar, but both are fantastic showmen, able to stir up crowds with their golden-tongued rhetoric.

I heard from a Messianic Rabbi who apparently was a long-time friend of Rabbi Singer, that Singer at one point in his life almost became a Messianic Jew. After rejecting this option, its seems that Singer decided to pursue a career to keep his fellow Jews away from Jesus at any cost. He is now the director of Outreach Judasim. He has his own radio show in Israel and his own tape series and study companion, both titled Let's Get Biblical.

As Michael Flanigan gives in his testimonial for Singer's book: "Check all the references to Strong's Driver and Briggs, or any other resource you have." I couldn't agree more. Two resources I recommend for a more in-depth study are biblos.com which has the Bible in almost every conceivable language, interlinear versions, and Strong's numbers for further research. The other is the Blue Letter Bible, which gives you access to word study tools. Both are completely free, and don't even require you to register!

In fact, I recommend that every Biblical apologist go through Singer's material with a Bible study group. Nearly all the apologetics disasters come from Lone Ranger apologists.

That said, go slowly through Singer's tapes and his study guide and thoroughly research answers to his objections. This will take a lot of time, a matter of years. Be patient and keep plugging along, because if you can finish this monstrous series, you will be prepared to obliterate almost any Biblical skeptic in debate.

For the rest of you who do not want to engage in such a humongous chore, you can just cheat. James Trimm has released an audio series with a lot of the answers to Singer's objections in his Let's Get Truthful audio series. Michael Brown has also released his own audio series called Countering the Counter-Missionaries. He also gives even more detailed responses in his five volume book series Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus.

My series will not attempt to provide any sort of an exhaustive answer to Tovia Singer's objections, which may at first glance seem overpowering, but take heart. Singer is a powerful speaker, but a weak Biblical scholar who makes a lot of basic errors. I intend to not only expose some of his errors but I also intend to bring something unique to the table: an explanation of how Tovia uses his rhetorical skills to make a relatively weak argument sound much, much stronger than it actually is. So yes, Tovia. Let's get Biblical.

Abusing Sources: Tovia Singer on Biblical Hebrew

On my list of least favorite anti-missionaries, I think Tovia Singer ranks #1, at least right now. The guy has a charming personality and is a great speaker, no doubt. But he also reminds me a lot of a used car salesman. He will butter you up, tell funny stories, and get you to like him. If you are a Jew, he is out to get you by hook or by crook.

One of Tovia's favorite tricks is his arbitrary use of translations. If the English helps his case, he will us that. He will say something like, "The King James Bible, which is not the slightest bit sympathetic to Judaism, says such and such." When the Hebrew is more convenient, he uses the Hebrew. Generally, he prefaces it with "You don't read Hebrew very well, do you?"

What's worse is when he uses the fact that he knows Hebrew and his audience does not, so that he can give a sort of argument from authority. Here is an example:

In his answers to audience questions section of his book: Let's Get Biblical (page 283), Singer responds to a question regarding Isaiah 53:10. The questioner asks about the phrase: "his days will be prolonged" and wonders why this phrase cannot apply to Jesus. Since Jesus was raised from the dead into an immortal body, and is technically still incarnate (as he will be when he returns), he has been alive as a human for about 2000 years. Were his days not prolonged?

After bellyaching about Christian misinterpretation of the Psalm which represents Israel, and after mentioning that the Hebrew word זָ֫רַע (zera, Strong's 2233) means only literal children and never metaphorical children, such as in Isaiah 57:4:
"Are you not children of transgression,
the seed [ זָ֫רַע (zera)] of deceit," (oops)

and of course before his attack on Nicaea and the divinity of Jesus, there is a paragraph where he gives a response to the question that is actually being asked!

This response, however, does little to relieve their problem. To begin with, the Hebrew words יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים (ya'arich yamim), meaning "long life" in this verse do not mean or refer to an eternal life which has no end, but rather a lengthening of days which eventually come to an end. These Hebrew words are therefore never applied in Tanach to anyone who is to live forever. In fact, the words ya'arich yamim appear in a number of places throughout the Jewish scriptures, including Deuteronomy 17:20, Deuteronomy 25:15, Proverbs 28:16, and Ecclesiastes 8:13. In each and every verse where this phrase appears, these words refer to an extended mortal life, not an eternal one. When the Jewish scriptures speak of an eternal resurrected life, as in Daniel 12:2, the Hebrew words לְחַיֵּי עֹולָם (l'chayai olam) are used.

This is a butchery of grammar. The term יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים (ya'arich yamim) does not mean long life, as the word יַאֲרִיךְ (ya'arich) is not an adjective. It is the imperfect tense or prefixed conjugation of the verb אָרַך (arach, Strong's 748). So the term יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים (ya'arich yamim) does not mean "long life" but "will prolong [his/her/its] days." It means exactly the same thing in Hebrew as it does in English. It means that the days will be made longer. How much longer? Generally, when the term is used in English it refers to a lengthening of days which eventually come to an end. It is very rarely the term we use in English to mean "make someone live forever." Generally we use the term "give eternal life" or perhaps "immortalize" to mean that.

When someone has an extra year to live, we say their life has been prolonged. When someone has an extra ten years to live, we say their life has been prolonged more, right? So if God wanted to prolong someone's days to the maximum extent, what would he do? He would give the person eternal life, right?

Besides, if Tovia Singer is right and Isaiah 53 is about Israel, does this mean that Israel is supposed to experience a lengthening of days which eventually come to an end? I hope not.